Opinion
No. 18-7256
04-24-2019
GEORGE REYNOLD EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER CAPPS; WILLIAM RICHARDSON; JASON WEISINGER; RAY MCPHERSON, Deputy; JOE BYRD, Master Sgt.; JUSTIN HERON, Deputy; JEREMY BARBER, Lt.; NORMAN DWAYNE BARNES, Master Sgt.; STEVE NOBLE, Deputy; LEWIS HATCHER, Sheriff; MICHAEL L. GROOM; ROBERT MILLS; JAMES N. KELLER; CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, N.C., Defendants - Appellees.
George Reynold Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Terence Steed, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Brian Edes, CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (7:15-cv-00252-BO; 7:17-cv-00004-BO) Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Reynold Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Terence Steed, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Bradley O. Wood, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Brian Edes, CROSSLEY MCINTOSH COLLIER HANLEY & EDES PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
George Reynold Evans appeals the district court's orders denying the appointment of counsel, striking Evans' declaration, accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge, and denying relief on Evans' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Evans v. Capps, Nos. 7:15-cv-00252-BO, 7:17-cv-00004-BO (E.D.N.C. July 25, 2017 & Sept. 27, 2018). We deny Evans' motion for the appointment of counsel and his motion to remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED